Monthly Archives: July 2007

I’m back, dear readers! And feeling better than ever!:) Sometimes the *best* thing we can do is take some time off and rest, recuperate, and rejuvenate to our heart’s content.

****************************************************************

Sometimes when researching and learning ways of resisting manipulation (such as the double-bind tactics or emotional blackmail that mainstream patriarchial PUAs will sometimes try to pull), it’s important to realize that there are old, proven, and tried methods of resistance that were already researched and developed.It was called “assertiveness training,”and its primary developer and proponent was an enterprising psychologist by the name of Manuel J. Smith, the author of the ground-breaking book When I Say No, I Feel Guilty.This book was first published in 1975, truly an oldy-but-goody.:)I will provide a link from the “h2g2” section of the BBC website on assertiveness training that mentions its primary proponents, Manuel J. Smith and Susan Jeffers:

I want you to pay **special** attention to what Dr. Smith referred to as the “Bill of Assertive Rights.”I trust that you’ve already looked at the link, but just to be helpful, I’m going to quote the Bill of Assertive Rights here again:

The ‘Bill of Assertive Rights’ in When I Say No, I Feel Guilty reads as follows:

1.You have the right to judge your own behaviour, thoughts, and emotions, and to take the responsibility for their initiation and consequences upon yourself.

2.You have the right to offer no reasons or excuses for justifying your behaviour.

3.You have the right to judge if you are responsible for finding solutions to other people’s problems.

4.You have the right to change your mind.

5.You have the right to make mistakes – and be responsible for them.

6.You have the right to say, ‘I don’t know’.

7.You have the right to be independent of the goodwill of others before coping with them.

8.You have the right to be illogical in making decisions.

9.You have the right to say, ‘I don’t understand’.

10.You have the right to say, ‘I don’t care’.

Yes, people, you have these rights.Take them!As I’ve explained in another of my earlier posts on this blog, your worth as a person cannot be judged by others; you have the right to exist, and the right to your own personhood.As a Christian, I will stand up for the fact that there is objective right and wrong; however, this does not mean that your worth as a person should be dependent on anyone else’s approval or goodwill.Please understand that this “Bill of Assertive Rights” is not a license for predatory behavior, but rather a statement of what is in effect God-given rights to self-worth, self-determination, and free will.God is the ultimate Judge, but no human has that right, only Him/Her…and with that in mind, let us merrily figure out ways that Dr. Smith’s manifesto can be used to protect ourselves against manipulators.:)

Let’s examine a PUA and his tactic from Neil Strauss’ book, The Game.Strauss talks about a PUA by the moniker of “David X,” and relates this following story in his book:

…Every PUA had a specialty, and David X’s was harem management—

juggling relationships with multiple women without lying to them.When

we walked into the dim sum restaurant, I was shocked by what I saw

waiting for me.David X was quite possibly the ugliest PUA I’d ever

meet.He made Ross Jeffries look like a Calvin Klein underwear model.

He was immense, balding, and toadlike. , with warts covering his face and

the voice of a hundred thousand cigarette packs.My meal with him was

like so many I’d had before.Except the rules were always different.His

were:

I.Who cares what she thinks?

II.You are the most important person in this relationship.

His philosophy was to never lie to a female.He prided himself on bedding women by trapping them with their own words [emphasis mine].For example, on meeting a girl at a bar, he’d get her to say that she was spontaneous and didn’t have any rules; then, if she was reluctant to leave the bar with him, he’d say, “I thought you were spontaneous.I thought you did what you wanted.”The Game, pp. 145-146.

I disliked leaving in the observationsabout David X’s appearance, as I think this culture is way too obsessed with youth and beauty as it is, but I felt that for the integrity of presenting his methods and their effectiveness,I felt bound to leave them in.

The point of all this is that “David X” is/was damn effective on playing on women’s feelings of obligation of “honoring her word” and “proving” herself.He apparently was really good at manipulating women into attempting to demonstrate their own value as “spontaneous,” and then trapping them by their speech.The antidote, dear readers, is to internalize the Bill of Assertive Rights and to apply them!

For example, how could a woman apply the Bill of Assertive Rights as above?

She could, for example, apply Right Number 1.She could believe and say the following:“I am doing what I want and being spontaneous.I’m saying goodbye.Bye!”Here, she’s being the final judge of her behavior, thoughts, and emotions—and taking responsibility for their application.

She could assert Right Number 2.“Uh, I’ve changed my mind.Guess I’m not spontaneous after all, like I thought.Have a good night.”And then walk away.

She could exercise Right Number 8:“Hmm, yeah, I’m not being rational about being spontaneous and doing what I want, but—no.Bye.”

She could assert Right Number 10:“You’re right, but I don’t care what you think of me:I’m not leaving the bar with you.Period.Have a good night,” turning and walking away.

Also, on the above link to the BBC article, you will find a number of tactics one can use to resist manipulation if someone is aggressively refusing no for an answer:“Broken Record,” “Fogging,” “Negative Assertion,” and “DESC Scripting.” If my memory serves me correctly, these methods are all in When I Say No, I Feel Guilty.

However, one thing must be said:what is more important than these techniques is realizing wholeheartedly and without reserve that you HAVE THESE RIGHTS AS ENUMERATED in the “Bill of Assertive Rights,” and that you HAVE THE RIGHT to self-autonomy, to steer your own ship, and that no other human HAS ANY BUSINESS TRYING TO CO-OPT THESE RIGHTS.People will do their level best to try to guilt-trip you, tear you down, or otherwise convince you that you have to answer to them, but this quite simply is not the truth.It is NO ONE’S civil right to have sex with you in spite of your better judgement, to sell you things, or to otherwise try to get you to dance to his/her tune; you’re not depriving them of anything if you say NO.You have that right.Remind yourself frequently and often of this important fact.

Women in particular nowadays are on the receiving end of a lot of fear-mongering, bashing, and demonization.I’ve seen all sorts of things aimed at feminists and women in general about how if we don’t kowtow to men, we’re all going to die as crazy old single women with umpteen cats.This is a gross and usually very ineffective attempt at playing on women’s “fears”, because usually we see right through it. BUT.Many social observers are commenting that girls and young women are especially prone to this sort of moronic manipulation, guilt-tripping, and emotional bullying; it needs to be exposed for what this is, so that the younger generation can take advantage of the experience of those who lived in a much more honest and open age.:)Please understand that manipulation, carried to a certain degree, becomes verbal and emotional abuse, and check out this link on the abuse of young women:

You will note that the age group that appears to be the most vulnerable to relational abuse is the 16-to-24-year-old set of girls and young women; my guess is that it is precisely this age group that is the most prone to being manipulated, particularly as obedience and compliance is often much more emphasized for girls than it is boys by parents.As young women emerge from girlhood and enter the world as adults, frequently they haven’t learned to shake off the habit of habitual compliance to others’ wishes that is so ingrained in their childhood.

Hmm, Stanley Milgram, anyone?

I think I’ll blog on that next.:)Until next time, dear readers:Let’s put the CHOMP on patriarchy!:)

I’ve been recently challenged by a fellow Christian to blog more on the Gospel and proclaim it more…and I think he’s right. So.:) Just a warning, dear readers…you’re going to see more religious posts from me quite soon about my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.:)

however…

a number of my readers are atheists and agnostics–and I want them to feel comfortable and happy reading this blog, TOO! I believe in fostering a secular as *well as* a religious ethos for everyday living, and so this is what I’m going to do:

1) All posts I write on the Gospel in terms of witnessing will be carefully logged under “Christianity: My Journey”: thus, if you don’t want to read about religious belief, you can just skip my posts under that title.

2) In the next day or two, I’ll provide a post and a comment thread where readers will have the opportunity to debate and offer different viewpoints about atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, and other religions. I think this is only fair, because if I’m trying to make an anti-manipulation blog **for all* to benefit from, anti-religious and non-religious voices should have the opportunity to be heard.:)

I look forward to this thread, and it *will* have rules for civilized debate and dialogue–so, if you’ve got a hankering, come on over and check it out.:)

Okay, women, this is how I’m going to do it. I’m going to post this thread on collapsing an anchor in NLP, which essentially is the elimination of an unwanted state that you feel is clouding your judgement and influencing you unnecessarily.

If you read my blog on a consistent basis, you will know that I advocate detachment from attraction and sexuality until you get to really, really know the person very well and have bona-fide, verified information from an objective-as-possible point of view on which to make a rational decision. This allows you to clear your head and assess the person as to whether or not he or she is good for you or other people that you know. This same level of attachment is desired in order to avoid having someone try to yank your chain, give you “double binds,” or try to anger you into doing something rash or stupid. In short, it can be used to get rid of **any** unwanted effect in your psyche. ANY EFFECT. YOU DECIDE WHAT’S UNWANTED, WOMEN.:)

Let’s say, for instance, you have found yourself becoming very, very attracted to someone very rapidly–WAY too rapidly, and you’re tempted to act in such a way that’s contrary to good judgement. Or conversely, let’s say someone is trying to goad you or mindgame you into giving them unwanted anger or attention that could divert you from your actual goals and set you up for a fall. This happens too: there’s a way to take care of this.:) Contrary to popular belief, unwanted states **can be** either positive or negative. If you think someone has just manipulated you into feeling mondo attraction or unwanted emotional garbage, here’s an EXCELLENT way of taking care of the problem:

I have test-driven this myself and can attest to its excellent results. And by the way, it WILL get rid of any unwanted emotional state you find yourself experiencing, regardless of whether the person inducing the state was using NLP or not.In other words, if someone’s giving you a stimulus to feel something…REGARDLESS of what’s providing that stimulus, be it an attempt at behavioral conditioning or NLP anchoring, this method will work.

This beautiful, well-laid out article and method must be attributed to Colin G. Smith and one of the founders of NLP, Richard Bandler. It came from the website Circles of Light.com, which is a bit too New-Agey for *my* taste, but what the Hades–we take our effective methods and information from where we can get them, right?:) And, the beauty of this particular article is that the methods are easily explained and carried out, without a lot of NLP lingo for beginners.:) This step-by-step method will offer immediate relief and information for women who are new to NLP and this blog and will want something immediate to protect themselves against manipulation into unwanted and unwarranted states of mind.

The only thing I would caution against is that “sacking one’s shrink” is not necessarily a good thing to do. If you have a psychological problem and are seeing a therapist–as just about 97% of the Western world ought to do, I would keep on with seeing the therapist even while seeing a therapist or psychiatrist. It’s good to get rid of unwanted states and emotions, but understand that psychological issues often have much more to do (often, although not always) with cognitive issues involving bad logical decisions made during childhood–or, biochemical imbalances in the human brain that are genetic or environmentally caused, or both! Stong emotion is not, in and of itself, indicative of a psych problem. HOWEVER, controlling strong emotions is the best way to avoid making bad decisions.

There is an awful lot of Neuro-linguistic Programming information on the Internet, and it is free.:)

Now, just some commentary about NLP: it’s morally neutral, like electricity or hydraulic power. You can use electricity to power a defibrullator to get someone’s heart started again, or you can use electricity to fuel an electric chair to put someone to death. It’s your choice, but you have to live with it. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord…” There has been an awful lot of information on the Net that enables manipulating women into the sack. It’s time to use the *same* information to help women counter manipulation designed to make them “feel good” and reward them right into bed.

My blog is dedicated to overcoming manipulation of all types from a feminist perspective, and freeing oneself from unwarranted control from other people’s domination. Too often, women have been controlled and conditioned against our will, not understanding the ways and means by which we’ve been led around by the nose. The beauty of adding NLP in order to inform and enrich feminist critique and resistance of patriarchy is that we now have genuine tools to overcome attempts at manipulation and mind control.

There is a thought within NLP circles about “ecology;” this is the idea that NLP practitioners should not monkey with someone’s head to manipulate them into situations that do not serve the person’s best interest. NLP practitioners can and do discuss what is ecological and what is ethical and serves the greater good:

I enjoyed the first thread immensely, and I appreciate this lawyer from Austin, Texas, blogging on the concept of avoiding knee-jerk reactions and maintaining an inner spirit of peacefulness while talking about –even if I don’t suscribe to her idea that outrage is less desirable than experiencing goodness. I think moral outrage is very necessary in a world where atrocities and power struggles have become all-too-commonplace. To me, outrage is as necessary as experiencing peace. BUT. She has a point in the sense that knee-jerk reactions can be very much manipulated, and on THAT sense, I whole-heartedly agree with her here. It is always best that expressions of anger and outrage be done from a place where the speaker/writer is in a state of CONTROL–and done on his or her timetable and best interest.

On the second thread, I particularly refer you to Points 1-6. I thought that this PDF file, “Shared Values of the NLP Community,” by Robert Dilts, was excellent. It shows that there is aconcern within the NLP communityfor ethics and boundaries.

As a Christian, I can’t agree that unlimited choices are good; after all, I do feel for religious reasons that there are moral absolutes. As a feminist, I feel that anything that preys on women is defacto evil, regardless of the intent of the predator. However, I’m going to express my appreciation for the ETHICAL practitioners of NLP, who can and DO discuss what proper ethical behavior is.

I look forward to the day when a circle of feminist NLP practitioners can be created that will add to the discussion within the NLP community feminist concerns, critiques, and philosophy about ethics and ecology. I’m interested in using NLP as a way to put women in charge of our own lives as an antidote to being programmed with the New Patriarchy’s expectations, demands, and manipulations…and I will work towards this end with my entire being.

If NLP is ethically neutral, it can be used to free women and the general population from personal power games, advertising and mass marketing, and socio-political mind control. This is a morally worthy goal to work towards.:) However, we must be wary of the “one-method-fits-all” mentality, and so therefore I will be on the lookout for other methods to refuse and resist conditioning and manipulation. When I find them, I will post their threads and comment on them.:) Time to share the wealth, women:)…

Dearest Readers,

We *all* make mistakes. When we do, the best thing we can do is rectify them…and change them so that that would-be predators can’t try to bite you for raining on their parade and foiling their efforts at preying on the innocent.:) Sometimes the wolves will try to bite the pit bull who fights for the Shepherd and the sheep…so the pit bull must be prepared, with giant fangs and a nice long crook stick called a lawyer.:) It turns out that I had quoted from an article very extensively that was copyrighted without realizing it; well, I took it down. However, what my lawyer says is that *by Internet law,* I’m **allowed** to **provide the link** and comment on the link and the person who wrote it to my heart’s content; as long as I use NO quotation from the link–even if copyrighted–NO legal action is possible. I dislike paraphrasing, but I dislike mainstream patriarchal PUAism even more–so I’m thinking that I’m going to get very good at the paraphrase, even enjoying it. 😉 Yes, we **still** live in a free country, Virginia…one where even vampires can’t silence the whistleblowers and their opinions.:)))

So here is “On Babies and Vampires, Revisited: My Post of July 3rd on Thinking Girl’s Thread–and a Modified Article.” ENJOY.

*****************************************************

Modified Article:

I have decided to take the majority of my writing of July 3rd, 2007, on Thinking Girl’s thread and re-post it **here.** I know that Thinking Girl’s two PUA threads are lengthy and can present real challenges for reading, so I’m going to help my readers out by taking this chunk and post it here as well–with more original writing and commentary. I really advise that people read the two threads on PUAism at TG’s, because this will give you the real background to understand just precisely what my viewpoint is on this subject. My added commentary will be in red text, so that it becomes clear which of my writing is the original from the post on TG’s blog and which is what’s been added on here.

********************************************************

Scarred: TO CLEAR UP THE RECORD ONCE AND FOR ALL ABOUT **WHY** I’M ON THIS THREAD, AND WHY I FORMED MY BLOG: I have never, not once, claimed that I’m some kind of intellectual giant. I have been **very** honest all along about the purpose of my writing on mainstream patriarchal PUAism, which is **TO BUILD METHODS OF RESISTANCE TO AND INCREASE AWARENESS OF** its methodologies. Some people are more interested in critique; that’s okay, my intellect has always in some ways been more geared towards the practical rather than the theoretical, although I’ve gave analysis a good “college try” on the first PUA thread here on the blog.

In the earlier section of the first PUA thread at TG’s, I brought up a lot of ideas regarding Terror Management Theory and sexual addiction to explain the intransigence and rationalization of many mainstream PUAs about the methods they use to “attract” women. Many to most mainstream patriarchal PUAs insist on their “right” to get women into bed by any means “necessary”–by hook or by crook. The justifications and denial is incredible to me, but there it is.

Scarred: I’m *still* going to analyze PUA methodology, but it’s going to be on **my** terms–which is analysis **with an eye towards resistance.** I have made this clear all along; I’ve never hidden this fact, not once. And my own feeling is that if my critique/analysis was **so** premature and overgeneralized, it wouldn’t have ignited the firestorm on this blog that it did. People respond incessantly and persistently to effectual threats, not ineffectual ones. I watch behavior, NOT claims.

I realized early on that we feminists were never going to persuade mainstream PUAs as a group to abandon their unethical methods of “seduction,” because I realized that there’s no quarreling with a patriarchal “junkie” hooked on controlling women with methods involving sex and power. I decided to focus my efforts on educating women as to what mainstream patriarchal PUAism is all about, and to develop methods of refusal and resistance. Some men will **get** this as well.

Scarred: I’ve noticed that the reaction has become particularly fierce since I’ve started advocating using methods of propaganda analysis to deconstruct PUA advertising and methods. This tells me, quite rightly, that I’m very much ONTO something with recognizing PUA methods of approach, seduction, and advertising as a type of propaganda and marketing brought down to the **personal** level! If all women have to do is sit back and apply propaganda critiquing to the PUAs who are trying to approach them, it reveals the mirages for what they are–***doesn’t it?*** (And yes, that question was EXTREMELY rhetorical.)

If you combine using propaganda analysis and my methods of resisting pick-up methods that I entered on this blog on May 30th, 2007, you will have a nascent but probably *very* effective way of resisting mainstream patriarchal PUA methods. However, I also forgot to mention another very, very important tactic in my “Methods of Resisting Pick-Up Artists, Advertising, and Other Manipulators.” This tactic is this: BEWARE THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION. I’ll add a second post explaining this either today or tomorrow.

Scarred: Am I new to this? Certainly!! Is there a possibility that my advocated methods of resistance and analysis will change over the years? That’s a given. However, WHAT WILL NEVER CHANGE is my insistence on developing ways and means for women to refuse and resist patriarchal domination in whatever form it presents itself. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say this again: “If there’s anything I want women to take with them once you’ve read this, I want you to develop a ***bullshit meter*** that can rival or surpass a cop’s.” For this, I, Thinking Girl, and the feminists on this thread have been vilified and attacked incessantly, and there’s been a non-stop, CONSTANT effort to derail or distract our efforts. In case PUAs still can’t understand this, get this, and get this through your heads: WE’RE GOING TO KEEP ON NO MATTER WHAT.

This is self-explanatory.

Here’s one of the samples of some of the SHIT that has been thrown my way for daring to develop and argue for methods of resistance: “Being a victim of past scarring events doesn’t mean that you should keep reducing yourself into a victim for the victimizers, it won’t make the certain future victimization of yourself less scarring – strengthen your mind and defend yourself with actions that aren’t knee-jerk reactions.” Posting of April 17, 2007, 4:07 am by J.A.

Scarred: This person did everything he could to slur me and my work, although granted in a very sideways manner–had he chosen to be honest with himself, he would never have said this. He knew DAMN WELL somewhere, deep down inside himself, that I wasn’t reducing myself or others into chronic victims; this especially doesn’t fly with me given how much EFFORT I’ve put into developing ways of spotting and resisting manipulative PUA methods. Working on ways to prevent victimization ISN’T being a professional victim.

I am by no means the only feminist who has ever been accused of having a “Victim Mentality.” What many people seem unable to grasp is that the messenger isn’t usually the one creating the situation. To talk about women’s victimization is not the same as creating it, wallowing in it, or enjoying it. Let’s say that there was an outbreak of bubonic plague in Albuquerque, New Mexico on a *massive* scale. If the CDC shows up on the scene in biowarfare suits and tons of antibiotics while enforcing a quarantine of the city and **warning** New Mexican and other American citizens to stay out of Albuquerque and watch for the symptoms of plague, would you accuse the CDC of creating an epidemic? Of course not! But when feminists try to inform people or observe that we live in a patriarchal culture with lots of infected mindsets, we get accused all the time of indulging in a victim mentality! I’m not saying that we’re plaster saints or that feminists or feminism is above criticism, but ANYTIME we talk about a nasty phenomenon, we *routinely* get tarred with the “Victim Mentality” brush. The above idiocy written by J.A. is a good example of this.

Or, how about this?

Prophet 919: “I have become genuinely disgusted and shocked. I have never seen such an utter waste of intelligence, knowledge and time in my entire life. This is the sort of extremist stereotyping that completely discredits the entire feminist movement. I’m sorry if you have had problems with men in your past or if you have never had a positive relationship with a male, but for you to so ignorantly label men as your enemy is simply foolish. Have you ever really deeply thought about why men act the way they do? Is the society that we live in not just as controlling for men as it is for women?”

Scarred: When this person got confronted and exposed on his bullshit about how I was stereotyping all men as “The Enemy,” he backtracked, lied to himself, and rationalized THIS WAY:

Prophet919: “well, youve pretty much agreed with what I meant actually, I think you misunderstood me as I was not clear enough.. I understand that scarred was not claiming all men are her enemy..”

Scarred: YEAH, RIGHT. Thinking Girl understood him **perfectly well.** He slung mud at me, then got real angry when I slung mud right back and pointed out to him that if he ignored and misread my posts, I can ignore [and misread] his, that he had his logic, I had mine. For daring NOT to get bowled over by his bullshit, he posted this:

Prophet919: “…and you scarred are the reason why your movement is getting nowhere. if you ever hope to create anything more than tension then you will have to accept the fact that there’s more out there than your own adamant opinions and pit bull feminist rage..”

Scarred: I will let his statement stand as one of the penultimate examples of male privilege that I’ve witnessed on a feminist blog. This ad-hominem non-logic was so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I think this man was angry because I simply stood my ground and didn’t roll over for his non-arguments.”…waste of intelligence, knowledge, and time” indeed! He fully admits that he couldn’t finish reading the thread, and then proceeds to lambaste me. That’s okay; I expect it. But what he DIDN’T expect is that I would get just as dismissive of him as he was of me. THAT seemed to really knock him through a loop.

Scarred: Now, I can have respect to a certain extent for criticism like this, although I don’t agree with it:

Hugh Ristik: “The problem I have is that you are making premature claims for which you don’t have sufficient evidence (at least, not yet), like the one I identify above; thus, your critiques are frequently overgeneralized and risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I understand that you aren’t particularly worried about throwing out the baby, since your focus is on draining the bath, yet for me, this lack of concern for the baby is problematic, because my project is either to reform the community, or to take what is positive from it and leave the rest.”

Scarred: Although I think this is well-reasoned, I also think that it’s a bad case of denial. Here’s why. Hugh [Hugh Ristik, creator of FeministCritics.org] and I fundamentally disagree on whether there’s a baby in the bathwater. He says it’s a baby. I say it’s a **vampire.** Maybe in some instances, Hugh is right and it’s just a baby in certain tubs. However, the more research I do into mainstream patriarchal PUAism, the more convinced I become that even if the creature may start out as a baby, it winds up becoming a vampire. If the vampire **leaves the bathwater,** then it seems to be going back towards being a baby, **but not as long as it’s in that bathwater.** Allow me to demonstrate my point.

Earlier in the thread, Hugh Ristik had made mention of Juggler, the founder of the Juggler method of PUA, as giving compliments on a woman’s good qualities that aren’t related to her looks. He did this as a rejoinder to my observation to a highly manipulative method that the Mystery Method advocates to seduce women by giving them compliments on qualities unrelated to their appearance. The post I had from the Mystery Method, however, blatantly and openly says that women are terrible at attracting men except through their looks; it was assumed that the PUA wasn’t attracted to the “target” except for her appearance and therefore was advocating a *nasty* little deception! This was my reaction, and Hugh’s rejoinder:

Scarred: THIS IS WHAT MAINSTREAM PATRIARCHAL PUAISM IS ALL ABOUT. This is its real face.

Hugh Ristik: This is one of its faces. Other PUAs, like Juggler, also advocate giving women compliments when they show positive qualities unrelated to their looks; yet for Juggler, this is not really a “technique,” because he argues it should be sincere.

The face I was referring to was the face of deception, not necessarily *a particular method* of deception. But, I left Hugh’s comment unchallenged at first…then, later on, I came across a particularly immoral advocacy and method of delibrately creating an addiction that–yes!–came out of the Juggler Method. And I used it in my post. Where does the deception come in for the Dark Side of the Juggler Method? Easy. The deception comes in with the idea that the PUA who sets out to emotionally addict a woman to himself actually cares about her. This is a gross illusion. One of the common ideas floating around in our culture is that you can gauge someone’s level of caring by how you feel around that person. PUAs take advantage of this and turn it into a monstrous deception. Watch the following.

Now, dearest readers, this is where I seriously modify the article due to copyright law. Therefore, I recommend that in order to follow the link back to its original source and **read** my commentary at the same time, open up another window to access the Net with your browser andGO TO THESE LINKS.

Scarred: I refer you to one of the senior instructors at Charisma Arts, Juggler’s method of PUA, a fellow who calls himself D1M1TR1. He was posted on Thundercat’s Seduction Lair–an entry entitled “The Dark Juggler Method.” Please check out the following two links, but be warned: hang onto your stomachs, women, because this will make you blanch hard if you think about it. You are about to read the method of delibrately addicting a human being to a predator: be warned:

That’s right, people…and by the way, if you feel like doing rape, cannibalism, or suicide bombing, that’s okay too, now isn’t it?? Sure, it’s okay to addict a woman to yourself…and it’s okay to sell heroin or little children, too…NOT. I myself have pointed out that we have the right to exist without approval or validation. But the right TO BE is a different animal than the right TO ACT. With action **always** comes moral obligations.

I felt sick as I read this method. I think D1m1tr1 is sociopathic in advocating this, and if anything **finding** this confirmed my observation that I have been right all along in my **own** ferocious intransigence on insisting that feminists design methods of refusal and resistance towards PUA methods.

Scarred: D1M1TR1 refers to the women he uses this technique on as “VICTIMS.” This is HIS language, people, not mine. I’m not selling you any wolf tickets, women; read this post very, very thoroughly. It gets horrifying if you really think about the implications of what he’s talking about. Could it be “just” a marketing technique? Yeah, I think it’s marketing, however I also know from my ugliest personal experience that this is ***possible:***

I think that D1M1TR1 was trying to be humorous here, as the drugs he’s referring to in his posting are the endorphins and other chemicals that exist inside the human brain. However, **I’m** not laughing. I know from personal experience that this is a **nasty** thing to be hooked on. When I was recovering from my love addiction, I went through everything that alcoholics go through in withdrawals with the exception of the delirium tremens. I went through extraordinary grief that was so intense that I occasionally bayed like a hound INVOLUNTARILY; all I could do was disassociate and observe myself howl; I swear that the sounds that came out of my mouth weren’t human at times. Other times I sounded just like an infant. This wasn’t ordinary crying and weeping, people; to me, it seemed that I was POSSESSED by a spirit of grief. Believe me, you don’t EVER want this.

Scarred: Remember the posting I’ve done on sexual and love addiction on the first PUA thread at TG’s? THIS is how it begins–by euphoria and ecstacy as intially manufactured in the brain of the sex or love addict. And please understand me very, very thoroughly: THIS IS THE DELIBRATE CREATION OF AN ADDICTION. This is **also** what drug dealers like to do to the newbies–the first sample is ***free.***

Scarred: WHEN, not if, I perfect methods of resistance, D1M1TR1 will most certainly NOT be able to do this to any woman he chooses, and MANY women will be able to resist these drugs. In fact, I’m thinking that a wariness of the open-ended question and the ability to recognize and refuse the inital “rush” of brain chemicals as any basis to act on or make a decision of will be enough to head off any “seduction.” I’m not going to bet the farm on that, however; that’s why our research must be ongoing.I urge people to go back to the first PUA thread that TG has on this blog. On it, you will find my posting on Terrance Real, sexual addiction, and what my love addiction almost brought me to. I wasn’t kidding when I posted initially about how I almost threw myself off a tall building or ate a .45: I was as addicted as addicted as someone could be to a big-time manipulator and womanizer, PLUS earlier in my life I had been stung by a PUA (or possibly just an NLP master) who could have given Ross Jeffries lessons!! PUAs have done their level best to try to discredit me as someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, but the truth of the matter is **I know damn WELL what I’m talking about!** I LIVED with the results of brain-chemical addiction to someone: I KNOW what it can and will do to you.

**My boss** thought I was getting suicidal; he knew I was behaving in an uncharacteristically quiet way at work, and I was starting to really visualize blowing myself away or diving off a downtown tall building. That’s when I caught myself and got my ass into serious therapy.

Scarred: No intelligent junkie, pothead, coke head, or meth user deludes himself or herself that the drug dealer actually cares about the customer. Is there a possibility that some mainstream PUAs care? Maybe, **but I sure as hell wouldn’t bet the farm on it, and I SURE AS HELL am not going to leave my well-being and safety up to them.** Real caring and love doesn’t involve getting women so addicted to you that you can manipulate them and get them to do **whatever** you wish. And if your desire is casual sex, the LAST thing you want is to be addicted to someone, because how the hell are you going to move on??

If all someone wants is casual sex, it’s not hard to find other people who are into it to get it on. And if you want that person to have casual sex, you **don’t** want that person addicted to you! Some PUAs will say, “Yeah, but there are methods of detaching someone from you after you’re had sex with them.” Uh, If you can never guarantee the attraction, what makes you think you can guarantee the **DETACHMENT?** And furthermore, NO ONE has the right to play with other people’s heads this way. And it WILL undermine the mental health and stability of the person you’re playing with–if not now, sometime down the line. I can’t prove this, but I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that one of the reasons why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are volatile could be that they’re both *rumored* to have dealt with PUAs before–meaning, they’ve possibly been manipulated into the sack. Neil Strauss mentions in his book “The Game” that *both* of them have been approached by PUAs.

Scarred: We talk about drug cartels and big-time drug dealers in this society, as well we should. While I tend to be pro-legalization regarding drugs, I will NEVER claim that drug dealers and members of drug cartels are fine, upstanding citizens. We have, for the most part, NO PROBLEMS recognizing hard-drug pushers as vampires and parasites on society. Given that the chemicals in our brains regarding emotional bonding are very, very powerful, mainstream PUAs are just as vampiric and parasitical, IMHO. At best, your local pot-and-acid dealer might be a harmless chap caught in an economically rough time in his or her life; at worst, the head of the Cali and Medallin Cartels are monsters. And the harder the drugs, generally, the more monstrous the dealers. Also, the higher up the drug-dealing chain you go, the more monstrous the people become. Given what you’ve just read from D1M1TR1, and given all the **other** PUA gurus out there, what makes you think they’re any different? Yes, the “baby” in the bathwater in **many** cases is a fucking vampire–so **many** cases that it’s NOT worth taking the chance that it isn’t!!I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it that mainstream PUAism is the creation of emotional subjugation and slavery of women. There is NOTHING HERE that will do women any good, and ultimately it will only harm us. Feelings of euphoria and ecstasy are **only** feelings; and unfortunately, because women get battered by life in a patriarchy all the time, we frequently wind up miserable a big chunk of the time–so we get fooled by people who “make us feel good.” **This** is what renders us so damn vulnerable to this stuff. Our vulnerability MUST end, and only women can rely on ourselves to get out of this mess. If we find **some** trustworthy men to help us, great!! But first and foremost, self-reliance FIRST. Because I guarantee you that THIS clown, Thundercat, who posted D1M1TR1’s method, ***isn’t*** going to help you.

Read very thoroughly what Thundercat had to say as a response to what D1M1TR1 just taught the readers of Fast Seduction: read it over and over again. Understand very, very thoroughly that Thundercat has no objection to what D1M1TR1 has just taught: in fact, he appears awfully RELIEVED to see that a method of enslaving someone has just been taught. Because, after all, feminism is just being “PC” when it objects to men enslaving women, because goodness knows we can’t have LIMITS on men, now can we?

UNDERSTAND THIS, DEAR SISTERS: THESE MEN HAVE NOT AND WILL NEVER CARE ABOUT YOUR HUMANITY. THE FACT THAT PICK-UP ARTISTS CAN FORMULATE SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND THEN PRACTICE AND TEACH IT IS THE PROOF THAT–NO MATTER HOW PLEASANT, ATTRACTIVE, OR “EMPATHETIC” THEIR FACADE–THEY DO NOT SEE YOU AS A HUMAN BEING.

Scarred: The saying on the bumper sticker about feminism is~what? “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” You see, the idea that women are people and deserve better than to get hooked on some misogynist pig is apparently viewed as just an unfair “obstacle set upon men by society.” Women, please forget about thinking that some PUA brain-chemical pusher is going to view you as a human being, or that he’s actually going to care about you.

Finally, I will leave you with the words of Hugh Ristik, whom I wish would actually believe what he wrote here, because it is the TRUEST thing he has ever written. I’ll just want to add this one thing: you don’t have to **be** a sociopath in order to cause the **damage** of one if you adopt a quasi-sociopathic attitude to justify your dealer actions:

“The seduction community is a group of men who believe that women are attracted to what pro-feminist author R. W. Connell would call ‘hegemonic masculinity.’ Prior to the community, some of its members buy into masculinity, and some do not. What they agree on is that women are attracted to masculine men (we’ll save the question of how true this is for later). Since they believe that the vast majority of women have such preferences, they believe that the only practical way to approach sex and relationships with women is by learning to perform masculinity better. Unfortunately, the performance of masculinity, as feminists have correctly pointed out, can have negative consequences both for these men and for the women they interact with. For example, in seduction forums, I have protested the maxim “don’t give a shit,” a classic example of male stoicism. Only a sociopath truly doesn’t give a shit. This doesn’t mean that PUAs are sociopaths, but it is disturbing that they feel they need to adopt stoic and quasi-sociopathic attitudes in order to be successful with women.” Yes, Virginia, the baby in the bathwater really IS a vampire.

I don’t have a magic wand to wave to convince the reader that mainstream patriarchal PUAism is immoral and unethical, not to mention soul-destroying and horrid. As you can see, I’ve done my very level best to try to persuade others of this reality, but I’m not going to focus the bulk of my efforts on this. If someone doesn’t ”get it” and chooses to become a PUA, there really isn’t much you can do to convince them; his motivations are going to be much more about addiction and the love of power and control rather than about love and relatedness. And there isn’t a **damn** thing you can do about it until he gets help. The ONLY thing you can is to avoid enabling that person in ANY way, shape, or form; this means that you must not fall for his tactics, you must not make it easy for him, you must not fall for “reframing” mindgames, you must not go along with HIS program, and you must decide for yourself what it is that you really want. Frankly, if I had a boyfriend or husband who became a PUA, I would dump or divorce him–and **I wouldn’t take him back until he went into treatment for sexual addiction.** But each woman must decide for herself what she’s going to do faced with this situation. I believe that the best way for women to avoid being preyed on by PUAs is to **avoid them** and not to fall for their tactics. To this end, we MUST educate and arm ourselves with knowledge, ability, detachment, and motivation.Most of all, as women we must quit repressing what we observe or allow other people to convince us that we’re “deluded” or “crazy” or “mistaken” or “uptight” or what have you–**especially** if you’ve spent some real time and energy researching and learning PUA methodology. If you think you’re seeing a vampire in the bathwater, don’t let other people try to convince you that it’s a baby!

When strange men are approaching you, be extremely wary of theopen-ended question. The open-ended question is a question that does not have a yes/no answer and requires thought and/or imagination to answer. The last thing I want to do is to advocate paranoia for my readers, but I very much urge caution and care when someone you’ve just met is asking you questions.

Open-ended questions from a pick-up artist (PUA) are designed not to get real answers from the woman he’s targeting but to elicit certain states in her, which he can then “anchor” (meaning, to associate them with himself) and recreate at earlier or later times. Neuro-linguistic programming is where this initially originated. I will refer you to this link at Wikipedia on anchoring:

Anchoring can be done in some basic ways: it can be done kinesthetically (meaning, by touch–frequently, a touch on the arm is the most commonly used), it can be done verbally, with praise (or negativity, if someone wants to be able to set up a negative emotion to conjure up at a later date), and it can be done with sight–such as a dazzling smile at something you’ve said.

Be aware that you can combine anchoring techniques: for example, after answering an open-ended question designed to elicit a desired response, the questioner (a PUA or possibly someone else who is using NLP) can touch you on the arm or elsewhere, say, “Great!” and with a dazzling smile. This is known as “stacking anchors,” and it’s damn effective unless you know **exactly** what you’re dealing with. Even if you’re aware, sometimes the anchors can be set up without you knowing it. I refer you to this link where a woman was conditioned into making tea for her husband anytime he wanted it. Note just how subtle the conditioning can get:

One of the people who came on one of my NLP training courses was particularly taken with the idea of anchoring. Shortly after the NLP training, one morning his wife offered to make him a cup of tea, and as she did so, he gently tapped the side of his cup with his ring. He repeated this the next few times she made him a cup of tea. After a while, all he had to do was tap the side of his cup subtly with his ring & she would spontaneously offer to get him a cup of tea!! Very Naughty use of NLP, Eh?! Just by creating a sensory representation (tapping the cup) that coincided with her making tea, he was soon able to use that representation as a trigger for what he wanted. He did eventually share his NLP anchoring experience with his wife and you can be sure he makes a lot more tea than she does now! [author: Adam Eason]

This link is from cached websites that Google took a snapshot of: I recommend looking at them. If you have a problem in accessing the information, contact me, and I’ll see what I can do.

The important thing to avoid is allowing yourself to go into states of ecstacy, euphoria, or pleasure when thinking about a new man you’ve just met. Habitual patterns of emotion or action is *precisely* what you want to look for. The tea-making was supposedly harmless, and the husband *might* have just wanted to find someone to practice anchoring on, although what he did to his wife was *damn* sexist. However, there is a way the wife could have cottoned onto what was going on previously to her husband *telling* her how he had anchored her.

Point 1: The wife could have stepped back and asked the very important question: “Why have I picked up this new habit of spontaneously offering him tea? What’s going on here?”

Point 2: The wife could have tried to sit down and remember the various times when she was serving tea to her husband–and try to pick out the common thread of what he was doing just previously to her serving the tea. This could be tough, however…

Point 3: The wife could have checked out what her internal state was previously to each time she served the tea. This is an easier and in some ways much more accurate way of gauging what was going on. She could watch out for compulsory feelings such as the urge to get him some tea. Urges are particularly easy to look out for. Watch your impulses; discover what they are and govern them! This may take a lot of effort…self-control can be a very hard thing to acquire; it’s worth it, however, as it puts you in the driver’s seat of your own life.

Tea-serving is harmless; being manipulated into the sack is a whole different animal.

Note how the husband didn’t even have to ask the wife an open-ended question!

However, a stranger is at a distinct disadvantage when dealing with you. There isn’t the huge catalog of positive and negative memories, states, and trust level that our friends and loved ones have to call on and induce. This makes a huge difference; this situation can be dealt with much more easily.

Avoid this: watch for associating feelings of sexuality, ecstacy, euphoria, and behavioral impulses with new men.

I don’t care how “different,” “unique,” or “special” they many appear from all the other men you’ve ever met. In fact, the more “different, unique, special,” or “standing out from the crowd,” a man seems to be, the more of a red flag this actually is. This is what PUAs strive for, to stand out in a woman’s memory, thoughts, or viewpoint as being separate and different from all the other men she’s ever met.

You do not have a basis for making a real decision for going to bed with a man until you’ve known him for years. Beware the open-ended question, women. It has led to one hell of a lot more deception and manipulation than any of us can imagine.

Let’s say you’ve already been bit by the euphoria/ecstasy bug, and you’re uncomfortable with how quickly this has developed. There is a way to get rid of this, or bring this under control: more on this the next time I post.

In light of the recent terror attempts in London and Glasgow, and also because I have **two** friends from the U.K., I want to offer my condolences and prayers for the healing, well-being, and safety of the people of the Old Country. My prayers are with you all, and I hope with all my heart that there can be a way to achieve peace and security for all on Earth in our lifetimes.

I was led by the Holy Spirit to “randomly” pick these verses from the Old Testament as–prayer or prophecy? I’ll let you decide. But this is the word of the Lord for this post today regarding this issue:

“‘As the LORD your God lives,’ she answered, [the Widow of Zarephath for whom Elijah the prophet worked a miracle] ‘I have nothing baked; there is only a handful of flour in my jar and a little oil in my jug. Just now I was collecting a couple of sticks, to go in and prepare something for myself and my son; when we have eaten it, we shall die.’ ‘Do not be afraid,’ Elijah said to her. ‘Go and do as you propose. But first make me a little cake and bring it to me. Then you can prepare something for yourself and your son. For the LORD, the God of Israel, says, ‘The jar of flour shall not go empty, nor the jug of oil run dry, until the day when the LORD sends rain upon the earth.’ She left and did as Elijah had said. She was able to eat for a year, and he and her son as well; the jar of flour did not go empty, nor the jug of oil run dry, as the LORD had foretold through Elijah. Sometime later the son of the mistress of the house fell sick, and his sickness grew more severe until he stopped breathing. So she said to Elijah, ‘Why have you done this to me, O man of God? Have you come to me to call attention to my guilt and to kill my son?’ ‘Give me your son,’ Elijah said to her. Taking him from her lap, he carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his own bed. He called out to the LORD: ‘Oh LORD, my God, will you afflict even the widow with whom I am staying by killing her son?’ Then he stretched himself out upon the child three times and called out to the LORD: ‘Oh LORD, my God, let the life breath return to the body of this child.’ The LORD heard the prayer of Elijah; the life breath returned to the child’s body and he revived. Taking the child, Elijah brought him down into the house from the upper room and gave him to his mother. ‘See!’ Elijah said to her, ‘Your son isalive.’” [emphasis mine] (Scriptural passage is 1 Kings Chapter 17, verses 12-23, New American Bible.)

I don’t really understand myself why I was led to put in these Bible verses in this post. My own feeling is that it is a message from the Lord, but I’m going to let the readers decide for themselves what it means. My own feeling, though, is that this is an allegorical prophecy for the Western world, or for Britain and Scotland–or both. The Widow of Zaraphath can be said to be the U.K.; the dead son could be said to be the feeling of security and well-being that died with the advent of Islamofascist terrorism. The drought can be said to represent the lack of common sense and morality as evidenced by the Bush/Blair regimes. Elijah the prophet can be said to represent the presence of God who is with the people of the Old Country and the West in general. The oil and flour that miraculously self-replenish for an entire year is the sustenance that God gives us all, even when we’re not aware of it–although in this case (cake?), it may mean something else. More than anything, however, what God is trying to tell you, dear reader, is that just when you think God has abandoned or chastised you, it is then that Our Father-Mother is with you the most.

It is not for me to know the meaning of this prophecy; I feel a bit weird putting it out on the Net. Nonetheless, I was pulled strongly to put this on my blog, and as a Christian I’m bound to obey God above all else. The meaning of this allegorical prophecy will show itself over time. Just know that God loves you, dear readers, and that no trial lasts forever.

Yours in Christ,

Scarred the Feminist Pit Bull, who is occasionally God’s servant when I put aside my cowardice and do what He wants me to.